ORIGINAL RESEARCH
published: 06 December 2019
Edited by:
Elisa Pedroli,
Italian Auxological Institute (IRCCS),
Italy
Reviewed by:
Silvia Testa,
University of Turin, Italy
István Tóth-Király,
Concordia University, Canada
*Correspondence:
Mikaela Willmer
Mikaela.Willmer@hig.se
Specialty section:
This article was submitted to
Quantitative Psychology
and Measurement,
a section of the journal
Frontiers in Psychology
Received: 10 April 2019
Accepted: 25 November 2019
Published: 06 December 2019
Citation:
Willmer M,
Westerberg Jacobson J and
Lindberg M (2019) Exploratory
and Confirmatory Factor Analysis
of the 9-Item Utrecht Work
Engagement Scale in a
Multi-Occupational Female Sample:
A Cross-Sectional Study.
Front. Psychol. 10:2771.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02771
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02771
Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor
Analysis of the 9-Item Utrecht Work
Engagement Scale in a
Multi-Occupational Female Sample:
A Cross-Sectional Study
Mikaela Willmer 1* , Josefin Westerberg Jacobson 1,2 and Magnus Lindberg 1,2
1
Department of Health and Caring Sciences, Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, University of Gävle, Gävle,
Sweden, 2 Department of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
Objective: The aim of the present study was to use exploratory and confirmatory
factor analysis (CFA) to investigate the factorial structure of the 9-item Utrecht work
engagement scale (UWES-9) in a multi-occupational female sample.
Methods: A total of 702 women, originally recruited as a general population of 7–15-
year-old girls in 1995 for a longitudinal study, completed the UWES-9. Exploratory factor
analysis (EFA) was performed on half the sample, and CFA on the other half.
Results: Exploratory factor analysis showed that a one-factor structure best fit the
data. CFA with three different models (one-factor, two-factor, and three-factor) was then
conducted. Goodness-of-fit statistics showed poor fit for all three models, with RMSEA
never going lower than 0.166.
Conclusion: Despite indication from exploratory factor analysis (EFA) that a one-factor
structure seemed to fit the data, we were unable to find good model fit for a one-,
two-, or three-factor model using CFA. As previous studies have also failed to reach
conclusive results on the optimal factor structure for the UWES-9, further research is
needed in order to disentangle the possible effects of gender, nationality and occupation
on work engagement.
Keywords: confirmatory factor analysis, exploratory factor analysis, Utrecht work engagement scale, work
engagement, occupational psychology
INTRODUCTION
Work engagement has been described as the conceptual opposite of burnout (González-Romá et al.,
2006), and as such belongs in the area of positive psychology, or “the study of the conditions
and processes that contribute to the flourishing or optimal functioning of people, groups, and
institutions”(Gable and Haidt, 2005). In occupational health, the study of work engagement focuses
on factors that contribute to job satisfaction as well as long-term mental and physical health
(Torp et al., 2013).
Work engagement has been described as “a positive work-related state of mind characterized
by vigor, dedication and absorption.” (Schaufeli et al., 2002). These three concepts are in their
turn described as “characterized by high levels of energy and mental resilience while working, the
willingness to invest effort in one’s work, and persistence even in the face of difficulties” (Vigor),
1 December 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 2771
Willmer et al.
“characterized by a sense of significance, enthusiasm, inspiration,
pride and challenge” (Dedication) and “characterized by being
fully engrossed in one’s work, so that time passes quickly and
one has difficulties in detaching oneself from work” (Absorption)
(Schaufeli et al., 2002).
The idea that these three concepts – Vigor, Dedication and
Absorption – together form the foundation of work engagement
forms the basis of the Utrecht work engagement scale (UWES)
(Schaufeli et al., 2002). Originally a 17-item questionnaire
(UWES-17), the original authors have shortened it to a 9-
item version (UWES-9) in order to reduce the burden on the
respondents and minimize attrition (Schaufeli et al., 2006). The
items are in the form of statements (for example “At my work,
I feel bursting with energy” (Vigor); “I find the work that I
do full of meaning and purpose” (Dedication); “When I am
working, I forget everything else around me” (Absorption) which
the respondent reads and reacts to by indicating one of 7 points
on a scale ranging from 0 (“Never”) to 6 (“All the time”). The 9-
item version, which has been psychometrically tested in various
countries and samples (Ho Kim et al., 2017; Petrović et al., 2017),
will be the focus of the present study.
In a number of studies, conducted in different countries and
with samples of various make-ups, UWES-9 scores have been
found to be associated with work performance, job satisfaction,
and mental and physical health (Bakker and Matthijs Bal, 2010;
Christian et al., 2011). The scores have also been found to predict
general life satisfaction and the frequency of sickness absence
(Leijten et al., 2015).
Despite its wide-spread use, both the UWES-17 and the
UWES-9 have been the subject of some criticism. Mills et al.
(2012) have argued that the methodology when developing the
original scale contained flaws in relation to the establishment of
its factorial structure. Criticism has also been voiced regarding
the factor structure of the instrument, one of the main points
being that the three subscales Vigor, Dedication and Absorption
are very closely correlated with each other, casting doubt on
the three-factor structure’s superiority to a one-factor structure
using only the total score on the scale (Kulikowski, 2017). For
example, Shirom has argued that the three dimensions of Vigor,
Dedication, and Absorption were not theoretically deduced and
that they overlap each other conceptually (Shirom, 2003). In
support of this, several studies have failed to confirm the three-
factor structure in their samples. Previous studies have also
tested other factor structures – for example, Kulikowski (2019)
tested a two-factor structure, with Dedication and Vigor merged
into a single factor and Absorption constituting a second factor
(Kulikowski, 2019). A 2017 review by Kulikowski investigated
the factorial structure of the UWES-17 and UWES-9 as reported
in 21 different studies, conducted in 24 countries using samples
from a variety of occupations and countries. The author found
that of the 11 studies investigating the UWES-9, three confirmed
the one-factor structure, three the three-factor structure, four
studies found these two factor structures to be equivalent,
and one study failed to support either alternative (Kulikowski,
2017). Thus, Kulikowski (2017) concluded that no definitive
recommendations could be made based on the review. He also
pointed out the importance, in light of these inconclusive results,
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org
Factor Analysis of UWES-9
that further research be conducted on the factorial structure of
the UWES-9 in different samples (Kulikowski, 2017).
Only one previous study has tested the factorial validity of
the UWES-9 in a Swedish sample (Hallberg and Schaufeli, 2006).
In their sample of 186 information communication technology
consultants (of whom 37% were women), both the one-factor
and three-factor structures were supported by data, leading the
authors to draw the conclusion that both options were equally
strong. If the scope is broadened to take in all the Scandinavian
countries, a Norwegian study using a large multi-occupational
sample (n = 1266, 67% women) found support for the three-
factor structure, but also found that the three latent factors were
strongly correlated, leading the authors to suggest that a one-
factor structure might also be suitable (Nerstad, Richardsen and
Martinussen, 2010). In addition to this, a Finnish study found,
in a sample of 9404 workers in several different occupational
sectors, that both the one-factor and three-factor structures
may reasonably be used (Seppälä et al., 2009). Similarly to the
Norwegian study, the results showed that the three subscales of
Vigor, Dedication, and Absorption were highly correlated.
Interestingly, it has been suggested that as a rule, levels of
work engagement tend to be higher in countries in Northwestern
Europe, and lower in Southern Europe, on the Balkans and
in Turkey (Schaufeli, 2018). However, Sweden is identified as
an exception to this rule, with relatively low levels of work
engagement compared to, for example, Norway, where levels
were found to be higher (Schaufeli, 2018).
The 9-item UWES is a widely used instrument to measure
work engagement. Despite this, the optimal factorial structure
of the UWES-9 remains unknown. A recent review of factorial
structure for the UWES-9 and UWES-17 failed to reach
conclusive results, and indicated that more research was
needed to determine the appropriate default factorial structure
(Kulikowski, 2017). Many previous studies have used relatively
small samples, and many have reached inconclusive results,
including the only previously published Swedish study. In order
to adequately assess and potentially target work engagement in
future interventions using Swedish populations, it is important
to examine and ascertain whether Swedish people hold the same
representation of work engagement. Thus, the aim of the present
study was to use exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA) to investigate the factorial structure of the 9-item UWES
in a multi-occupational Swedish sample.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Participants
The women in the all-female sample used for the current
study were originally recruited in 1995, when they were aged
between 7 and 15 years, through stratified randomization from
a number of school classes in Sweden. They were sampled to
represent a general population of girls, and were participants
in a longitudinal study aiming to identify risk and protective
factors for the development of eating disorders. More details
about the recruitment and follow-up can be found elsewhere
(Westerberg-Jacobson et al., 2010). The data used in the current
2 December 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 2771
Willmer et al. Factor Analysis of UWES-9

study was collected in 2015, as part of the 20-year follow-up data TABLE 1 | Demographic information about the participants.
collection. The participants remaining in the study were asked
Variable (n = 702)
to complete a number of questionnaires, including the UWES-9,
and those who indicated that they were currently working full- Mean Standard deviation
time or part-time (not on long-term sick-leave, parental leave,
Age 31.8 (2.9)
unemployed, or studying full-time) were included in the current
study. Thus, the final sample consisted of 702 women, aged Marital status Frequency Percentage
between 26 and 37, who completed a Swedish translation of the
Single 159 23
9-item UWES (Schaufeli et al., 2006). Aside from the UWES-
Married/cohabiting 530 76
9, data was collected on level of education (primary school,
Divorced 9 1
secondary education or university education), although not on
specific occupation. Education Frequency Percentage

Compulsory (9 years) 9 1
Ethics Statement <3 years upper secondary 21 3
The project was approved by the Regional Ethics Board in ≥3 years upper secondary 152 22
Uppsala, Sweden (2014/401). At the time of the original <2 years university 75 11
recruitment, in 1995, the participants and their parents gave ≥2 years university 425 61
written informed consent to take part in the study. At the time
of the data collection for the present study, the participants UWES scores Mean Standard deviation

again gave their written informed consent and were reminded
that their participation was voluntary, could be withdrawn any
time without giving a reason, and that all information would be
treated confidentially. All participants who completed the data
collection were offered a cinema ticket or a department store gift
voucher as thanks.
Statistical Analysis
All analyses were performed using Stata 14 (StataCorp, 2015) and
SPSS (IBM Corp, 2016) statistical software packages. The Kaiser-
Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy and Bartlett’s Test
of Sphericity were used to assess the suitability of the data for
factor analysis (Dziuban and Shirkey, 1974). Exploratory factor
analysis (EFA) was first performed unrotated, using maximum
likelihood extraction and eigenvalues > 1. Additionally, we
performed EFA with promax rotation and enforcing three-factor
solution in order to test the theoretical structure of the UWES-
9. In this analysis, we also used maximum likelihood extraction.
Additionally, Parallel Analysis (using principal axis factoring)
and Velicer’s Minimum Average Partial test were conducted
(O’Connor, 2000).
CFA was then performed using maximum likelihood
estimation.
In order to investigate the models’ goodness of fit, a number of
statistics were used: Overall χ2 (Hooper et al., 2008), root mean
square error of approximation (RMSEA) (Steiger, 1990; Hooper
et al., 2008), Akaike’s information criterion (AIC), Bayesian
information criterion (BIC), comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker-
lewis index (TLI) (Bentler, 1990), and the standardized root mean
square residual (SRMSR) (Hooper et al., 2008).
RESULTS
Demographic information about the participants can be seen in
Table 1. Data on highest attained educational level was collected,
and showed that the majority of the sample had attended at least
3 years of higher education.
Total UWES score 4.06 1.18
Vigor 3.96 1.19
Dedication 4.24 1.25
Absorption 3.98 1.32
The inter-item correlation was relatively high for all items
of the UWES-9, ranging between 0.524 and 0.849. The three
subscales Vigor (V), Dedication (D), and Absorption (A) also
showed high correlation with each other (0.79–0.84). In addition
to this, Cronbach’s alpha was calculated and found to be 0.947,
indicating very good internal consistency.
The items were checked for skewness and kurtosis and these
are shown in Table 2, together with the wording of the items,
their respective subscales, mean scores and standard deviations.
Based on the Shapiro-Wilks test and a visual inspection of their
histograms, normal Q-Q plots and box-plots, we concluded that
the UWES item distributions had a skewness range between
−0.560 and −1.262 (SE = 0.094) and a kurtosis range between
−0.046 and 1.645 (SE = 0.187) (Table 2). The values for
skewness and kurtosis were deemed to be within the range for
maximum likelihood estimation. We also tested the multivariate
normality using Doornik-Hansen test, the Mardia skewness test
and Mardia kurtosis test. For all of these, the p-value was <0.0001,
indicating non-normality.
In the next step, the sample was randomly divided in two,
so that mutually independent samples were obtained for the
EFA and CFA, respectively. As the number of participants with
missing values was very low (19 individuals, corresponding to
3% of the entire sample), only observations without any missing
items were used, resulting in 683 observations in total, 341 for the
EFA and 342 for the CFA.
Exploratory Factor Analysis
The results of the EFA suggested that one factor explained
over 70% of the variance. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of
Sampling Adequacy was 0.922, indicating that the sample was

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 3 December 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 2771

Willmer et al. Factor Analysis of UWES-9

TABLE 2 | Items with their subscales, mean scores, standard deviations, skewness, and kurtosis.

Item (subscale) Mean Standard deviation Skewness Kurtosis

1. At my work, I feel bursting with energy (V) 3.93 1.30 −0.798 0.294
2. At my job, I feel strong and vigorous (V) 4.08 1.22 −0.921 0.678
3. I am enthusiastic about my job (D) 4.10 1.32 −0.900 0.568
4. My job inspires me (D) 4.01 1.44 −0.808 0.266
5. When I get up in the morning, I feel like going to work (V) 3.89 1.49 −0.805 0.113
6. I feel happy when I am working intensely (A) 3.89 1.49 −0.711 −0.046
7. I am proud of the work that I do (D) 4.62 1.32 −1.262 1.645
8. I get carried away when I am working (A) 4.43 1.31 −1.159 1.474
9. I am immersed in my work (A) 3.64 1.64 −0.560 −0.497

V, vigor; D, dedication; A, absorption.

TABLE 3 | Factor loadings.

Variable Factor 1

UWES1 0.78
UWES2 0.81
UWES3 0.93
UWES4 0.90
UWES5 0.81
UWES6 0.86
UWES7 0.78
UWES8 0.79
UWES9 0.65

adequate, and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity gave a p-value of

<0.001. A Scree plot of the eigenvalues was constructed (not
shown) and shown to be strongly in favor of the one-factor
structure. The χ2 for this model was 332,43 (df 27).
Velicer’s MAP test was also performed, both in the original
(Velicer, 1976) and revised version (O’Connor, 2000). This also
strongly pointed toward a one-factor solution.
Finally, in the Parallel Analysis, the raw data eigenvalue
from the actual data was greater than eigenvalues of the 95th
percentile of the distribution of random data for four factors, in
disagreement with the MAP test and the EFA (O’Connor, 2000).
Table 3 shows the factor loadings. As the table shows, all
loadings were relatively high, ranging from 0.65 to 0.93.
In addition to this, we also conducted EFA using promax
rotation and enforcing a three-factor structure, in order to
compare the fit of the theoretical dimensionality of the UWES-9
with the one-factor solution we found in our sample. The χ2 for
this model was 45,72 (df 12) (p < 0.001). The items did not load
on their expected factors “Dedication” had 4 items (3, 4, 5, 6),
“Vigor” had 2 items (1, 2), and “Absorption” had 3 items (7, 8, 9).
FIGURE 1 | One-factor structure with maximum likelihood estimation.
In order to also test the theoretical foundation of the UWES-
9, we performed CFA with the original three subscales Vigor,
Dedication and Absorption. Additionally, inspired by a previous
study by Kulikowski (2019), who also tested a two-factor model,
we also performed CFA using this structure.
Figures 1–3 show all the attempted models.
Table 4 shows the coefficients of the hypothesized
relationships, together with their z-values, standard errors,
95% confidence intervals and p-values, for all tested models.
After estimating the models, goodness-of-fit statistics were
obtained, as described in the section “Materials and Methods,”
above. As can be seen in Table 5, none of the models showed very
good fit, with RMSEA ranging between 0.181 and 0.167. Also, CFI
and TLI, which should preferably be above 0.95 (Hooper et al.,
2008) remained below this value for all tested models.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis DISCUSSION

As the EFA suggested a one-factor solution, as described
above, the model was first specified with just one latent factor
(Work Engagement). Standardized coefficients were used and
the estimation model was maximum likelihood, since the items
showed acceptable skewness and kurtosis (Table 2). Observations
with missing values were excluded.
The aim of the present study was to use exploratory and CFA
to investigate the factorial structure of the UWES in a multi-
occupational sample of Swedish women. The EFA seemed to
mainly favor a one-factor solution, which was shown to explain
over 70% of the variance.

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 4 December 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 2771

Willmer et al. Factor Analysis of UWES-9

TABLE 4 | All models’ standardized coefficients and associated data.

Item Coefficient Standard error z-value p-value 95% CI

One-factor model
Item 1 0.79 0.02 50.42 <0.0001 0.76; 0.82
Item 2 0.82 0.01 59.95 <0.0001 0.79; 0.85
Item 3 0.92 0.01 132.99 <0.0001 0.91; 0.94
Item 4 0.90 0.01 109.15 <0.0001 0.89; 0.92
Item 5 0.81 0.01 55.85 <0.0001 0.78; 0.83
Item 6 0.87 0.01 83.55 <0.0001 0.85; 0.89
Item 7 0.76 0.02 44.83 <0.0001 0.73; 0.80
Item 8 0.81 0.01 57.54 <0.0001 0.78; 0.84
Item9 0.69 0.02 33.19 <0.0001 0.65; 0.73
Two-factor model∗
Item 1 0.80 0.02 36.08 <0.0001 0.75; 0.84
Item 2 0.83 0.02 42.84 <0.0001 0.79; 0.87
Item 3 0.92 0.01 80.72 <0.0001 0.89; 0.94
Item 4 0.90 0.01 67.82 <0.0001 0.87; 0.92
Item 5 0.76 0.02 31.74 <0.0001 0.72; 0.81

FIGURE 2 | Two-factor structure with maximum likelihood estimation. Item 6 0.89 0.02 56.27 <0.0001 0.86; 0.92
Item 7 0.77 0.02 32.23 <0.0001 0.72; 0.81
Item 8 0.83 0.02 40.16 <0.0001 0.79; 0.87
Item 9 0.76 0.03 28.72 <0.0001 0.71; 0.81
Three-factor model∗∗
Item 1 0.89 0.01 81.70 <0.0001 0.87; 0.91
Item 2 0.92 0.01 93.13 <0.0001 0.90; 0.94
Item 3 0.94 0.01 147.03 <0.0001 0.93; 0.95
Item 4 0.93 0.01 128.89 <0.0001 0.91; 0.94
Item 5 0.74 0.02 36.26 <0.0001 0.70; 0.78
Item 6 0.99 0.01 80.71 <0.0001 0.86; 0.90
Item 7 0.75 0.02 42.25 <0.0001 0.72; 0.79
Item 8 0.84 0.02 60.96 <0.0001 0.81; 0.86
Item 9 0.73 0.02 36.10 <0.0001 0.69; 0.77
∗ Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 belong to the combined vigor/dedication factor. Items
6, 8, and 9 belong to the absorption factor.∗∗ Items 1, 2, and 4 belong to the vigor
factor. Items 3, 4, and 7 belong to the dedication factor. Items 6, 8, and 9 belong
to the absorption factor.

FIGURE 3 | Three-factor structure with maximum likelihood estimation. TABLE 5 | Goodness-of-fit statistics for all models.

Fit statistic One-factor Two-factor Three-factor

model model model
Confirmatory factor analysis was then performed using
Chi2 (df) 633.90 (27) 354.49 (26) 247.76 (24)
three different models: one-factor, two-factor, and three-factor.
RMSEA 0.181 0.192 0.167
Goodness-of-fit statistics were obtained for all models and (90% CI) (0.169; 0.194) (0.175; 0.192) (0.154; 0.180)
showed that none of them showed overall good fit, with RMSEA AIC 16221.47 8246.29 8143.56
never going below 0.167 and CFI and TLI remaining relatively BIC 16343.70 8353.66 8258.60
low (Table 5). CFI 0.895 0.882 0.920
As previously mentioned, a recent review of the factorial TLI 0.860 0.837 0.880
structure of the UWES showed inconclusive results, with some SRMR 0.046 0.049 0.065
included studies showing best fit for a one-factor structure, some
Df, degrees of freedom; RMSEA, root mean squared error of approximation; CI,
showing best fit for a three-factor structure, and some showing confidence interval; AIC, Akaike’s information criterion; BIC, Bayesian information
an equally good (or poor) fit for both (Kulikowski, 2017). This criterion; CFI, comparative fit index; TLI, Tucker-Lewis index; SRMR, standardized
indicates a need for further research into the underlying factors root mean squared residual.
impacting the factor structures in various samples.
One of the studies included in the Kulikowski review found used a sample similar to ours, both in terms of size (382 vs.
that neither the one-factor nor the three-factor structure of the 342) and level of education (in both samples, around 60% had
UWES-9 was a good fit for their data (Wefald et al., 2012). This a university degree or higher). The RMSEA was 0.18 and 0.16 for

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 5 December 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 2771

Willmer et al.
the one-factor and three-factor structures, in the Wefald study,
almost identical to 0.181 and 0.167 for our study.
A previous study by Kulikowski (2019) has also attempted
a two-factor structure, merging Dedication and Vigor into a
single factor, letting Absorption constitute the second factor
(Kulikowski, 2019). We attempted the same model in the present
study, but in agreement with Kulikowski’s results, failed to obtain
satisfactory goodness of fit.
The only previous Swedish study using the UWES used a
sample consisting of 186 information technology (IT) consultants
(37% women) and found that both the one-factor and three-
factor structure showed similar fit, with RMSEA of 0.13 and CFI
of 0.97 for both (Hallberg and Schaufeli, 2006). Although this
sample was Swedish, it was different from that of the present
study in other significant ways, such as gender (a majority were
male) and occupation (all the participants were IT consultants,
whilst ours was a multi-occupational sample), which may explain
the differences in the results.
If our results are compared with those of other studies
also using multi-occupational samples, several of them have, in
agreement the Swedish study by Hallberg and Schaufeli (2006),
found that both the one-factor and three-factor structures may
be used. For example, this was the case for Schaufeli et al. (2006)
with a very large multinational sample of 14521 individuals.
These differing results support the recommendation made by
Kulikowski (2017), namely that each study using the UWES-
9 should undertake their own factor analysis based on their
own sample, and make a decision on which structure to use
based on their own results (Kulikowski, 2017). In addition to
this, and in agreement with the current study, several previous
studies have found that none of the factor structures tested have
shown an acceptable fit (Hallberg and Schaufeli, 2006; Wefald
et al., 2012). Subsequently, researchers looking to use a measure
of work engagement may wish to use another instrument in
parallel with the UWES.
The present study has strengths, as well as weaknesses. The
relatively large sample size of approximately 700 women made
it possible to randomly divide the group into half so that both
an exploratory and a CFA could be undertaken. The fact that
the sample consisted exclusively of women may be seen both
as a strength and as a weakness. On the one hand, it ensures
that the results are not skewed by an uneven gender balance,
but on the other hand our results should not be assumed
to be generalizable to males. An Iranian study investigating
determinants of work engagement in hospital staff found no
significant effect of gender (Mahboubi et al., 2014). However,
a Dutch study exploring work engagement and burnout in
veterinarians found that women rated their work engagement
lower than men, indicating that gender differences may vary with
different occupational groups, nationalities, or other, hitherto
unknown factors (Mastenbroek et al., 2014).
In addition to this, in terms of generalizability, it should be
acknowledged that the sample used in the present study should
be considered to represent the white-collar population, based
on the higher-than-average level of education. More than 60%
of the participants reported having at least 3 years of university
education, whilst the national average for women between the
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org
Factor Analysis of UWES-9
ages of 25 and 34 is 35%, according to Statistics Sweden (Statistics
Sweden, 2017). In addition to this, only Swedish-speaking girls
participated. However, 21.6% had immigrated or had parents who
had immigrated to Sweden, which is in line with the population
in general (Statistics Sweden, 2018).
CONCLUSION
The present study used a large, multi-occupational female sample
to explore the factorial structure of the UWES-9. Despite
indication from EFA that a one-factor structure best fit the data,
we were unable to find good model fit for a one-, two-, or three-
factor model using CFA. As previous studies have also failed
to reach conclusive results on the optimal factor structure for
the UWES-9, further research is needed in order to disentangle
the possible effects of gender, nationality and occupation on
work engagement. Until such data exists, researchers would be
wise to conduct their own factor analysis in order to determine
whether the total score, the three dimensions representing Vigor,
Dedication and Absorption, or even a two-factor structure is
applicable for their sample.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
The datasets generated for this study are available on request to
the corresponding author.
ETHICS STATEMENT
This project was approved by the Regional Ethics Board
(2014/401). At the time of the data collection for the present
study, the participants were again asked to give their consent
and reminded that their participation was voluntary, could
be withdrawn any time without giving a reason, and that all
information would be treated confidentially. All participants who
completed the data collection were offered a cinema ticket or a
department store gift voucher as thanks.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
MW contributed to the conception and design of the work,
performed the analyses, and drafted the manuscript. JW and ML
contributed to the conception and design of the work, took part
in the data collection and analyses, and revised the work critically.
All authors approved the final version to be published, and agreed
to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that
questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the
work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
FUNDING
This work was supported by Capio Research Foundation,
the Signe and Olof Wallenius Foundation, and the
Thuring Foundation.
6 December 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 2771
Willmer et al.
REFERENCES
Bakker, A. B., and Matthijs Bal, P. (2010). Weekly work engagement and
performance: a study among starting teachers. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 83,
189–206. doi: 10.1348/096317909X402596
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychol. Bull.
107, 238–246. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238
Bollen, K. A. (2014). Structural Equations with Latent Variables. New York, NY:
Wiley.
Christian, M. S., Adela, S. G., and Slaughter, J. E. (2011). Work engagement:
a quantitative review and test of its relation with task and contextual
performance. Pers. Psychol. 64, 89–136. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01203.x
IBM Corp (2016). SPSS for Windows. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.
Dziuban, C. D., and Shirkey, E. C. (1974). When is a correlation matrix appropriate
for factor analysis? Some decision rules. Psychol. Bull. 81, 358–361. doi: 10.1037/
h0036316
Gable, S. L., and Haidt, J. (2005). What (and why) is positive psychology? Rev. Gen.
Psychol. 9, 103–110. doi: 10.1037/1089-2680.9.2.103
González-Romá, V., Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., and Lloret, S. (2006). Burnout
and work engagement: independent factors or opposite poles? J. Vocat. Behav.
68, 165–174. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2005.01.003
Hallberg, U. E., and Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). “Same same” but different? Can
work engagement be discriminated from job involvement and organizational
commitment? Eur. Psychol. 11, 119–127. doi: 10.1027/1016-9040.11.2.119
Ho Kim, W., Park, J. G., and Kwon, B. (2017). Work engagement in South Korea.
Psychol. Rep. 120, 561–578. doi: 10.1177/0033294117697085
Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., and Mullen, M. (2008). Structural equation modelling:
guidelines for determining model fit. Electron. J. Bus. Res. Methods 6, 53–60.
Kulikowski, K. (2017). Do we all agree on how to measure work engagement?
Factorial validity of Utrecht work engagement scale as a standard measurement
tool – A literature review. Int. J. Occup. Med. Environ. Health 30, 161–175.
doi: 10.13075/ijomeh.1896.00947
Kulikowski, K. (2019). One, two or three dimensions of work engagement? Testing
the factorial validity of the Utrecht work engagement scale on a sample of Polish
employees. Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon. 25, 241–249. doi: 10.1080/10803548.2017.
1371958
Leijten, F., van den Heuvel, S. G., van der Beek, A. J., Ybema, J. F., Robroek, S. J., and
Burdorf, A. (2015). ‘Associations of work-related factors and work engagement
with mental and physical health: a 1-year follow-up study among older workers.
J. Occup. Rehabil. 25, 86–95. doi: 10.1007/s10926-014-9525-6
Mahboubi, M., Ghahramani, F., Mohammadi, M., Amani, N., Mousavi, S. H.,
Moradi, F., et al. (2014). Evaluation of work engagement and its determinants
in Kermanshah hospitals staff in 2013. Glob. J. Health Sci. 7, 170–176. doi:
10.5539/gjhs.v7n2p170
Mastenbroek, N. J., Jaarsma, A. D., Demerouti, E., Muijtjens, A. M., Scherpbier,
A. J., and van Beukelen, P. (2014). Burnout and engagement, and its predictors
in young veterinary professionals: the influence of gender. Vet. Rec. 174:144.
doi: 10.1136/vr.101762
Mills, M., Culbertson, S., and Fullagar, C. (2012). Conceptualizing and measuring
engagement: an analysis of the Utrecht work engagement scale. J. Happiness
Stud. 13, 519–545. doi: 10.1007/s10902-011-9277-3
Nerstad, C. G. L., Richardsen, A. M., and Martinussen, M. (2010). Factorial validity
of the Utrecht work engagement scale (UWES) across occupational groups in
Norway. Scand. J. Psychol. 51, 326–333. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9450.2009.00770.x
O’Connor, B. P. (2000). SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of
components using parallel analysis and Velicer’s MAP test. Behav. Res. Methods
Instrum. Comput. 32, 396–402. doi: 10.3758/bf03200807
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org
Factor Analysis of UWES-9
Petrović, I. B., Vukelić, M., and čizmić, S. (2017). Work engagement in
Serbia: psychometric properties of the Serbian version of the Utrecht work
engagement scale (UWES). Front. Psychol. 8:1799. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.
01799
Schaufeli, W. (2018). Work engagement in Europe: relations with national
economy, governance and culture. Organ. Dyn. 47, 99–106.
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., and Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work
engagement with a short questionnaire a cross-national study. Educ. Psychol.
Meas. 66, 701–716. doi: 10.1177/0013164405282471
Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-romá, V., and Bakker, A. B. (2002). The
measurement of engagement and burnout: a two sample confirmatory factor
analytic approach. J. Happiness Stud. 3, 71–92.
Seppälä, P., Mauno, S., Feldt, T., Hakanen, J., Kinnunen, U., Tolvanen, A.,
et al. (2009). The construct validity of the Utrecht work engagement scale:
multisample and longitudinal evidence. J. Happiness Stud. 10, 459–481. doi:
10.1007/s10902-008-9100-y
Shirom, A. (2003). “Feeling vigorous at work? The construct of vigor and the
study of positive affect in organizations,” in Emotional and Physiological
Processes and Positive Intervention Strategies (Research in Occupational Stress
and Well-being, Vol. 3, eds P. L. Perrewe, and D. C. Ganster, (Bingley:
Emerald Group Publishing Limited), 135–164. doi: 10.1016/s1479-3555(03)03
004-x
StataCorp (2015). Stata Statistical Software: Release 14. College Station, TX:
StataCorp.
Statistics Sweden (2017). Befolkningens Utbildning. Available at: http://www.scb.se/
uf0506 (accessed July 2, 2018).
Statistics Sweden (2018). Folkmängd Och Befolkningsförändringar 2017.
Available at: http://www.scb.se/hitta-statistik/statistik-efter-amne/befolkning/
befolkningens-sammansattning/befolkningsstatistik/pong/statistiknyhet/
folkmangd-och-befolkningsforandringar-20172/ (accessed July 2, 2018).
Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: an interval
estimation approach. Multivariate Behav. Res. 25, 173–180. doi: 10.1207/
s15327906mbr2502_4
Torp, S., Grimsmo, A., Hagen, S., Duran, A., and Gudbergsson, S. B. (2013).
Work engagement: a practical measure for workplace health promotion? Health
Promot. Int. 28, 387–396. doi: 10.1093/heapro/das022
Velicer, W. F. (1976). Determining the number of components from the matrix of
partial correlations. Psychometrika 41, 321–327. doi: 10.1007/bf02293557
Wefald, A. J., Mills, M. J., Smith, M. R., and Downey, R. G. (2012). A comparison of
three job engagement measures: examining their factorial and criterion-related
validity. Appl. Psychol. Health Well Being 4, 67–90. doi: 10.1111/j.1758-0854.
2011.01059.x
Westerberg-Jacobson, J., Edlund, B., and Ghaderi, A. (2010). A 5-year longitudinal
study of the relationship between the wish to be thinner, lifestyle behaviours
and disturbed eating in 9-20-year old girls. Eur. Eat. Disord. Rev. 18, 207–219.
doi: 10.1002/erv.98
Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the
absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a
potential conflict of interest.
Copyright © 2019 Willmer, Westerberg Jacobson and Lindberg. This is an open-access
article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License
(CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided
the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original
publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No
use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
7 December 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 2771